This
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edwin
G. Torres for a ruling on all pre-trial, nondispositive
matters, and for a report and recommendation on any
dispositive matters. On January 17, 2018, Judge Torres issued
his report, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff
Magdalena Borges's motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
11), grant Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration's motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 12), and affirm the administrative
law judge's unfavorable decision. (Report, ECF No. 15.)
Borges filed objections (ECF No. 16); to which the
Commissioner responded (ECF No. 18). After reviewing the
filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court
adopts Judge Torres's report and
recommendation (ECF No. 15),
denies Borges's motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 11) and
grants the Commissioner's motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 12).

“In
order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which
shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings and recommendation to which objection is made and
the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem,
Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Heath v. Jones,863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th
Cir.1989) (alterations omitted). The objections must also
present “supporting legal authority.” Local R.
4(b). Once a district court receives “objections
meeting the specificity requirement set out above, ” it
must “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report to which objection is made and may
accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783- 84 (quoting
Heath, 863 F.2d at 822) (alterations omitted). To
the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate
judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear
error. Macort, 208 F. App'x at 784 (quoting
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
Cir.1999). A court, in its discretion, need not consider
arguments that were not, in the first instance, presented to
the magistrate judge. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d
1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009).

Here,
Borges filed a document purporting to set forth her
objections. (Pl.'s Objs., ECF No. 16.) Although
Borges's filing spans twenty pages, much of it is
composed of either her rehashing the arguments presented to
Judge Torres in the first instance, without specifying any
particular error, or arguments she has presented for the
first time in her objections. This strategy defeats the
purpose of the Court's referral process. Thus to the
extent Borges's objections: simply restate her arguments
before Judge Torres, are overly broad, or were not first
raised with Judge Torres, the Court will not consider them.
See Mask v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co.,
LLC, No. CV 17-0421-KD-MU, 2017 WL 6395863, at *6 (S.D.
Ala. Nov. 21, 2017), report and recommendation
adopted, No. CV 17-00421-KD-MU, 2017 WL 6389661 (S.D.
Ala. Dec. 14, 2017) (“An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before
the Magistrate Judge is not specific.”)

Where
Borges does attempt to specify a particular error, the bases
for her objections tend to be incomplete. For example, Borges
complains Judge Torres should not have approved of the
Administrative Law Judge's decision to not give
controlling weight to the opinion of one of Borges's
treating physicians, Dr. Antonio Tauler. In doing so, Borges
notes, “[T]he Magistrate, to support the ALJ's
opinion, noted inconsistencies between Dr. Tauler's
conclusions and those of Drs. Glaccum-Gavagni and Davidson.
But the ALJ's reliance on the conclusions of the latter
two doctors was misplaced.” (Pl.'s Objs. At 6.) But
Judge Torres's evaluation considered, much more broadly,
whether the ALJ's decision to decline to afford Dr.
Tauler's opinion controlling weight was supported by
substantial evidence. In determining that it was, Judge
Torres noted the ALJ determined that Dr. Tauler's opinion
was not bolstered by and was, at times, even directly
contradictory to the other evidence of record. Some
of that record evidence, but not all of it, indeed included
reports from Drs. Glaccum-Gavagni and Davidson. The entirety
of Borges's argument, however, focuses only on why the
ALJ should have elevated Dr. Tauler's opinion over these
two doctors' reports, or in the case of Dr. Davidson, why
the ALJ should have disregarded much of her report
altogether. Missing, however, is how Borges contends Judge
Torres actually erred in finding substantial evidence to
support the ALJ's decision regarding Dr. Tauler's
opinion. In sum, Borges's argument rests entirely on her
disagreement with the way the ALJ weighed the evidence but
fails to identify how Judge Torres's finding of
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion was
in error.

Borges's
complaints about the ALJ's failure to give proper weight
to the opinion of another one of her treating physicians, Dr.
Elena R. Valor, suffers from similar infirmities. Borges
focuses on aspects of the record with which Dr. Valor's
opinion is consistent to support her argument that the
opinion should be afforded more weight. She fails, however,
to address all of the inconsistencies between Dr. Valor's
opinion and other aspects of the record as identified by
Judge Torres (and the ALJ). Again, Borges fails to show that
Judge Torres erred in finding substantial evidence to support
the weight the ALJ afforded to Dr. Valor's opinion.

The
Court finds Borges's objections to Judge Torres's
findings regarding the ALJ's evaluation of the vocational
expert's testimony unavailing as well. The vocational
expert evaluated various hypotheticals. Some of these
hypotheticals portrayed an individual with limitations that
were more restrictive than what the ALJ ultimately concluded
Borges was capable of. Ultimately, the ALJ disregarded the
vocational expert's conclusions that were based on the
overly restrictive hypotheticals. Borges complains that the
ALJ's limitations findings, however, were wrong and that
he therefore relied on the vocational expert's answer to
the wrong hypothetical. This argument, though, merely
repackages Borges's complaint that the ALJ did not
properly credit Drs. Tauler and Valor's opinions. Because
the Court finds that these opinions were properly evaluated,
the Court also concludes that Judge Torres correctly assessed
the ALJ's treatment of the vocational expert's
testimony.

Borges's
objections to the ALJ's residual functional capacity
determination are similarly ineffective. Again, Borges's
complaints in this regard rest chiefly on her contention that
the ALJ improperly discredited Drs. Tauler and Valor's
opinions. Upon a de novo review, the Court finds that Borges
fails, again, to show that the ALJ's determination was
not otherwise based on substantial record evidence.

Lastly,
Borges quarrels with Judge Torres's approval of the
ALJ's evaluation of Borges's credibility.
Borges's allegations of error, however, only amount to
alternative explanations for the discrepancies between
Borges's testimony and certain record evidence. The ALJ
clearly articulated his credibility determination and
supported that determination by referencing various portions
of the record in this case. The Court does not find that
analysis to have been in error.

The
Court has reviewed the remainder of the report and
recommendation for clear error. Upon this review, the Court
finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge
Torres's report is cogent and compelling. There is no
error evident in Judge Torres's conclusion that the
administrative law judge's decision was supported by
substantial evidence. The Court also finds no clear error in
the application of the proper legal standards used to
evaluate the record.

Accordingly,
the Court affirms and adopts the report and
recommendation (ECF No. 15),
grants the Commissioner's motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 12), and
denies Borges's motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 11). The Court thus
directs the Clerk to close this case.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Done
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.